Report: Cuts To Public Health Will Increase Illness And Raise Costs
Optometry students administer vision tests to patients at a Remote Area Medical (RAM) mobile dental ... More and medical clinic on October 07, 2023 in Grundy, Virginia. Programs like these will be hard hit by Medicaid cuts (Photo by)
Yesterday, the Common Health Coalition issued a major report that 'analyzes how cuts to public health infrastructure will ripple through the U.S. health care system – leading to sicker patients, higher costs of care, and added operational burden.' Cognizant of current events, the Coalition noted that 'the proposed disinvestment in Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) now under debate in Congress would compound these effects.' In my opinion, every American and their members of Congress should take note.
A Long-Needed Alliance
For most of our nation's history, public health and health care worked in parallel. There was little conflict between the fields, but limited cooperation as well. It took the hard lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic to convince both groups to strengthen teamwork and collaboration. In the spring of 2024, five major health-related organizations: AHIP, the Alliance of Community Health Plans, the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, and Kaiser Permanente, founded the Common Health Coalition to 'convince and equip U.S. health care organizations to partner with public health systems.' In 18 months, it has grown to more than 250 national and regional organizations.
The Coalition is chairedby Dave A. Chokshi, MD, MSc, FACP, a primary care internist who previously held leadership roles at NYC Health + Hospitals and served as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene during the pandemic. 'People have been talking about unifying medicine and public health for decades and frankly, have failed. I've inhabited both sides. I've been a leader in health care and had the privilege to lead in public health as well. This [role]Dr. Dave A. Chokshi, Chair of The Common Health Coalition being interviewed about the fifth ... More anniversary of the COVID-19 pandemic on NY1
Common Health's Priorities
The Coalition is committed to action in four priority areas: 1) Coordination between health care and public health; 2) Always-on emergency preparedness; 3) Real-time disease detection; 4) Exchange of actionable data, particularly to advance health equity.
J. Nadine Gracia, M.D., MSCE, president and CEO of Trust for America's Health and co-chair of the Coalition's advisory council, explained why these priorities were selected. 'As the nation's health risks – from infectious disease outbreaks to rising rates of chronic diseases to extreme weather – increase, now is the time to strengthen partnerships between the healthcare and public health systems. A healthy community is a more resilient community. Through strengthened collaboration, healthcare and public health practitioners can bring each sector's experience and expertise to bear to protect health during future emergencies.'
Initial Success
In its first 3 months, the Coalition grew from 5 members to 50, adding organizations as diverse as the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, Trust for America's Health and the Yale School of Public Health to Geisinger Health Plan, Ochsner Health and Parkland Health. Its leaders laid out the organization's vision in an editorial published in NEJM Catalyst and took active steps in a range of public forums to promote collaboration between members and engage in outreach to the public. In December, the Coalition launched its inaugural Common Health Challenge – 'Community Health Workers: Catalysts for a Reimagined Health System.' Two months ago, it awarded eleven $40,000 grants to organizations to fund work that demonstrates the integration of CHWs in ways that strengthen partnerships between health care and public health.
An Unexpected Challenge
When President Trump returned to the Oval Office on Jan. 20, the federal government's approach to public health and healthcare abruptly turned. Two weeks later, Elon Musk tweeted that his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) 'spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper.' DOGE followed this with draconian budget and manpower cuts to the CDC, the NIH and several other HHS agencies. Since much of these agencies' funding flows to state health departments and universities, the cuts sent shockwaves throughout the country. Newly appointed HHS Secretary, RFK Jr., closed entire divisions, shifted the department's priorities, and pushed world-renowned experts out the door. If narrow majorities of the House and Senate enact Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill,' funding for Medicaidand several other health-related programs will be slashed. Collectively, these actions represent a 'perfect storm' for America's health system and all who depend on it.
The Coalition's Warning
Yesterday, the Common Health Coalition released a major report that shows these and other cuts to public health infrastructure will ripple through the U.S. health care system, leading to sicker patients, higher costs and operational burdens that will affect everyone's access to care.
Impact of public health cuts on community health and access to health care
The report, 'More Illness, Greater Cost: the consequences of public health cuts for the health care system,' outlines three primary categories of impact:
'We are trying to shine a spotlight on the ways in which cuts to public health affect us all, because they affect the healthcare systems that we all rely on,' Dr. Choski explained. 'And I want to be clear, public health cuts have very direct impacts on people and communities. We've seen some dialogue around that, but what is less appreciated are the downstream implications these cuts will have for emergency room care, hospitals, and clinics, as well as the doctors and nurses all of us depend upon, regardless of our insurance coverage or ability to pay.'
Although everyone's access to care will be affected, the burden of increasing illness and higher costs will fall heavily on rural areas and underserved communities. As grim as this sounds, Choski warns that it will be even worse if Congress enacts big cuts to Medicaid and the ACA. Millions of Americans will lose coverage, many rural and inner-city hospitals and clinics will be forced to close or cut services, and tens of thousands of scarce health care providers could be laid off or forced to retire.
The Coalition's report concludes with a plea: 'Now is the time to align around shared priorities, act quickly to close urgent gaps, and invest in bold, collaborative solutions to improve and save lives.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republican who blamed the political left for her near-fatal ectopic pregnancy now says she's facing death threats
Florida Republican Rep. Kat Cammack has revealed that her offices had to be evacuated on Wednesday after she received 'imminent death threats' in response to comments she made last week about the treatment of her ectopic pregnancy in 2024. Cammack, 37, told The Wall Street Journal about her ordeal in a Florida emergency room after it was discovered that her baby's embryo was implanted where the fallopian tube meets the uterus, meaning it could not survive and that her own life was in danger without action. Writing on X on Wednesday evening, Cammack, who is pregnant again and due in August, recounted the disturbing backlash she had received in response to the article, posting screenshots of abusive messages she had been sent. 'Today, we had to evacuate our offices due to imminent death threats against me, my unborn child, my family, and my staff. These threats erupted after the Wall Street Journal reported on my life-threatening ectopic pregnancy – a nonviable pregnancy with no heartbeat,' she explained. 'Since then, we've received thousands of hate-filled messages and dozens of credible threats from pro-abortion activists, which law enforcement is actively investigating. In light of recent violence against elected officials, these threats are taken very seriously. 'To those spreading misinformation: I did not vote for Florida's heartbeat law; I serve in the U.S. House of Representatives, not the Florida Legislature. 'Let me be clear: I will not be intimidated. I won't back down in the fight for women and families. Ensuring women have the resources and care they deserve is critical. We need real conversations about maternal healthcare in America – conversations based on truth, not fear.' ABC News's Florida affiliate has reported that it was Cammack's Washington, D.C., offices that were evacuated in response to the threats, rather than her Sunshine State premises, and that the U.S. Capitol Police are investigating. A follow-up statement from her office declared: 'Congresswoman Cammack highlighted the critical women's health crisis in America, particularly the shortage of maternal health resources and the risks of politicizing healthcare. 'Her personal story illustrates how treating women's health as a political issue endangers lives. Misinformation campaigns, funded by pro-abortion groups, have intentionally confused healthcare providers despite the law being clear on exceptions; rape, incest, victims of trafficking and life of the mother. These dangerous pro-abortion ads contributed to delays that endangered her life. 'Since the Wall Street Journal article, she has received dozens of credible death threats against herself, her unborn child, and her family, which are being investigated by U.S. Capitol Police. 'Cammack's experience underscores the unacceptable reality that sharing a personal health story in an effort to improve women's healthcare can lead to violence and intimidation. Women deserve better, as does the national healthcare dialogue.' After deciding against surgery last year during her pregnancy, the hospital's doctors and nurses had to be persuaded to give her the shot of methotrexate she required to expel the pregnancy because, she said, they feared criminal prosecution under the state's six-week abortion ban, even though she was only five weeks pregnant at the time. The procedure in question was not an abortion. Surprisingly, the congresswoman did not take issue with the ban but instead blamed the medics' hesitance on scaremongering by Democrats.
The Intercept
11 minutes ago
- The Intercept
South Carolina Can Deny Medicaid Patients Planned Parenthood Care, SCOTUS Rules
The Supreme Court moved to limit access to health care for over 1.3 million South Carolinians on Thursday by allowing the state to block Medicaid recipients from getting care at Planned Parenthood. The tight restriction on reproductive rights will likely pave the way for similar bans in other states, as ongoing attacks on abortion providers further impinge on access to maternal, gynecological, and other basic forms of health care. In a 6-3 decision, the court determined that Planned Parenthood clinics and patients in South Carolina may not sue the state for denying Medicaid funding to the reproductive care provider. The ruling overturns repeated lower court decisions that affirmed Medicaid recipients' rights to visit a provider of their choosing that accepts the program. It comes against the backdrop of looming federal cuts to Medicaid, which would further restrict health care access for millions of low-income Americans. In South Carolina, abortion is already subjected to a near-total ban. State law prohibits abortion after six weeks with limited exceptions — which is often before someone would be aware that they're pregnant. Republican South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster has been direct about wanting to target Planned Parenthood because the network of clinics is known as an abortion provider. 'South Carolina has made it clear that we value the right to life,' McMaster said in a February statement. 'Therefore, taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize abortion providers who are in direct opposition to their beliefs.' The idea that Medicaid is subsidizing abortion care in South Carolina is incredibly misleading, said Susanna Birdsong, general counsel and vice president of compliance at Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. 'Medicaid does not cover abortion except in very narrow circumstances of rape, incest in life of the pregnant person,' Birdsong said. 'That's been a federal rule since the 1970s.' Planned Parenthood provides care for a host of other sexual and reproductive wellness concerns — meaning that low-income South Carolinians will lose access to 'health care that has nothing to do with abortion,' Birdsong said. She pointed to things like testing for sexually transmitted infections, cancer screening, and birth control. In its ruling, the Court made clear that it was aware of the other services Planned Parenthood provides. 'Planned Parenthood South Atlantic operates two clinics in South Carolina, offering a wide range of services to Medicaid and non-Medicaid patients,' reads a summary of the decision. 'It also performs abortions.' The Court noted that Planned Parenthood and a patient sued under the any-qualified-provider provision, which allows Medicaid patients to seek care from a provider of their choosing, but the majority determined they did not necessarily have an 'enforceable' right to do so. Experts expect that this decision will open the floodgates for other states to pass similar bans, limiting access to the largest provider of reproductive and sexual health care in the United States for millions of lower-income Americans. 'Other states certainly have tried it before,' said Dr. Jamila Perritt, an OB-GYN and president of the nonprofit Physicians for Reproductive Health. 'Much in the same way that abortion bans really swept this country, I think we're going to see similar effects.' The decision to limit where Medicaid patients can access care disproportionately affects women of color, said Perritt. As of 2023, the majority of people enrolled in Medicaid in South Carolina were nonwhite, and roughly 39 percent of Medicaid enrollees were Black, according to health policy research nonprofit KFF. Even before the decision, access to health care — particularly reproductive and sexual health care — in South Carolina was a challenge for lower-income residents. Roughly 41 of the state's 46 counties are considered federally designated 'Health Professional Shortage Areas,' and Medicaid recipients are disproportionately likely to live in communities with provider shortages. 'We're talking about communities that are already marginalized from care, communities that already have disproportionately poor reproductive and sexual health outcomes,' said Perritt, who predicted the decision would have 'significant negative health consequences.' Aside from having one of the strictest abortion bans in the country, South Carolina is one of only 10 states not to expand Medicaid coverage since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010. South Carolina also has the eighth-highest maternal mortality rate in the country, hovering around 47.2 pregnancy-related deaths per 100,000 live births, and some of the highest rates of sexually transmitted infections in the nation. 'It's really a state that should be investing more in its public health infrastructure and making sure that people who live in the state have access to the care that they need,' said Birdsong. Jennifer Driver, senior director of reproductive rights for State Innovation Exchange, said, like the state's abortion ban, lower-income people in South Carolina will bear the brunt of the burden of this decision. 'It targets people who are already limited on resources to say, 'You know what? On top of that, you actually don't get to have a decision on the care that you get and the provider you get it from,' she said. Read Our Complete Coverage At the same time, the Trump administration and Congress are seeking to further restrict health coverage for low-income Americans. A Congressional Budget Office report found that the House of Representatives' version of the 'Big, Beautiful, Bill' would leave 16 million Americans without health insurance and kick 7.8 million people off of Medicaid. Senate Republicans are considering their own set of Medicaid cuts, though they've been snarled by political opposition. 'This is a clear and obvious attack on people with low income, people who rely on Planned Parenthood clinics to get life-saving health services,' said Perritt. She described the decision as part of the government's broader efforts 'to eliminate access to comprehensive health care for folks, really across the country. This has to also be understood as an attack that reaches far beyond the borders of South Carolina.'
Axios
12 minutes ago
- Axios
Supreme Court ruling on patients rights' could devastate Planned Parenthood
Medicaid patients don't have a right to freely choose their medical provider, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Thursday, in a case that carries major implications for Planned Parenthood. Why it matters: The first abortion-related case of President Trump 's second term could result in the defunding of Planned Parenthood, which derives a significant chunk of its funding from the safety net program and is the nation's biggest provider of abortion services. Driving the news: The case, Medina v. Planned Parenthood, stemmed from South Carolina's move to block Medicaid recipients from getting care at Planned Parenthood clinics in the state. The Trump administration backed South Carolina's position. The decision in favor of South Carolina, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by the court's other conservative justices, may embolden more states to remove Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs. Texas, Arkansas and Missouri have already done so. It comes amid Trump administration efforts to withhold Title X family planning funds from Planned Parenthood affiliates. The sweeping GOP budget bill now being debated in Congress would also cut off Medicaid funding to the reproductive health group. Nearly half of patients who use Planned Parenthood health services have Medicaid coverage, according to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Shutting the provider out of Medicaid networks could effectively defund it — a longtime priority of conservative politicians and an explicit goal of Project 2025. Federal Medicaid funding is not used to pay for abortions with few exceptions. Less than half of states use their own dollars to cover abortion care under Medicaid. But defunding Planned Parenthood would not only further curtail abortion access. It would also diminish the availability of primary care services provided by the clinics, including STI and cancer screening, birth control prescriptions, vaccines and mental health help. What they're saying:"As far as Planned Parenthood and comparable providers are concerned, this case could be part of a one-two punch if Trump's Big Beautiful Bill passes," Mary Ziegler, a professor of law at University of California, Davis, wrote on X. "At a time when health care is already costly and difficult to access, stripping patients of their right to high-quality, affordable health care at the provider of their choosing is a dangerous violation of bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom," said Destiny Lopez, co-president and CEO of the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute.
